/m/satellite

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I'm glad this is being discussed but I'm skeptical that it will have any kind of impact on cost savings. What I suspect will happen is the cost of a la carte channels will have to be increased to counteract the loss of subscribers through packages.

Despite that I like it. Just that ability to get what I want is a big deal to me. I went through a fairly comprehensive review of my cable package recently and found that of the 300+ channels I have there were something like 25-30 that I watched at all. That was giving credit to channels that I watch maybe once a week.

I'm glad this is being discussed but I'm skeptical that it will have any kind of impact on cost savings. What I suspect will happen is the cost of a la carte channels will have to be increased to counteract the loss of subscribers through packages.

Exactly. I have no doubt in my mind that when I have to buy all the channels that either the lady or I watch, I'll be paying nary a dollar less than I was before.

On the one hand, if this bill passes, I might be able to watch the Nats without having to pay for 285 other channels. On the other hand, regardless of whether this bill passes, Bob Carpenter would still be calling their games.

Of course a la carte isn't going to be cheaper. Europe has a la carte for sports channels and it's $25 a month for the soccer channels in most countries. It's $75 in the UK. Sports fans basically freeload off of the majority that don't watch sports. They are the demographic that will pay through the nose for this.

Right, but this would surely kill off some channels, so you would get less selection and no cost savings.

I don't really see why Netflix (or Amazon or Hulu or Youtube or heck Google) doesn't buy up a lot of these shows networks are cancelling that seem to have a decent audience. Shows like 1600 Penn, Happy Endings, Enlightened, Ben and Kate, Fringe all seem to have enough buzz or viewers that although not good enough for network (or HBO), but would be a good amount of eyeballs for a fledgling "channel" like Netflix, and might give them some cache.

Anyway, my point is if this leads to the networks showing more Honey Boo boo and axing Don Draper to appeal to the masses, I have little doubt someone else will be there to swoop in. There is no "mass audience" anymore really, everything is going niche at this point, so there should be room for all kinds of shows to be profitable.

"Pick any 1 channel for $100/month. Pick any number of additional non-premium (HBO, Showtime etc.) channels for $0.05/month."

Pretty much the only reason I have cable is to watch live baseball and football. I mean, we watch and DVR other stuff but I could get it on Netflix or streaming or whatever. I might have to wait a year for Dr. Who or whatevs.

I am probably the furthest thing from a capitalist, but I feel the free market works extremely well in the modern, internet age, entertainment industry. In fact it might work better with less FCC regulation (not 100% on that though).

Of course a la carte isn't going to be cheaper. Europe has a la carte for sports channels and it's $25 a month for the soccer channels in most countries. It's $75 in the UK. Sports fans basically freeload off of the majority that don't watch sports. They are the demographic that will pay through the nose for this.

I've found that my 2 step process is the best way to resolve these issues

1) Have your favourite sport develop a good online streaming package
2) Move to a foreign country so the blackout rules don't apply

The blackout lift for publicly financed stadia is the key thing here. It will make mlbtv an option for folks like me who live in the hometown but don't want cable/satellite.

Same for me. I travel a lot and I have this thing where I want to watch the local team play whenever I'm in their town. e.g. I'm in Baltimore today and want to catch the end of the O's game when I get out of work. Tomorrow it's DC and the same thing. Since I'm in a motorhome it's either an expensive dome and an expensive satellite package (don't have), or its satellite radio (do have). And although I am a baseball on radio kind of guy, I still like to see the game on TV from time to time. With the lifted blackouts, MLB.TV on my laptop or tablet and my phone for a hotspot are more than enough.

Used to have the MLB.TV package the first couple of years, then when they started blacking everything out I decided it wasn't worth the $100+ a season and got the sat radio instead. I loooove sat radio, even if their customer service is kinda crappy and it's gotten a bit pricey.

Not a huge fan of McCain or his politics, but this part of the deal I can get on board with. I'm pretty sure a la carte cable is still going to be expensive, but other than baseball and the occasional news program, I watch zero TV anyway. Unless of course you count the content I look at on line. I can live without the ####### noisy box.

There's a fair chance he got the idea from conservative bloggers/twitterers. Apparently there's been a bit of a push for this sort of legislation as a way to put MSNBC and CNN out of business, or at least harm them.

Still though, it's a lot of money. I don't think a hardcore sports fan is going to realize much, if any, savings from a la carte.

Isn't HBO kind of the measuring stick here? It's been "a la carte" forever and it's $15 or so per month. I guess anything's possible, but I can't see that many people paying more for ESPN than HBO.

Even ESPN is a middleman -- it's not as though the leagues need them to distribute the premium games. And, frankly, if they see ESPN pulling in big dollars on their content in the a la carte world, I'd assume the leagues would. And without league content, ESPN is worth very, very little.

There's a fair chance he got the idea from conservative bloggers/twitterers. Apparently there's been a bit of a push for this sort of legislation as a way to put MSNBC and CNN out of business, or at least harm them.

Is that really going to do the trick? TCNN and MSNBC and all kinds of other news sources are just as accessible on line as on TV. Probably even more so, since many people don't have cable, but they do have access to the 'net, usually via their phones.

And what will the conservative bloggers do about the liberal bloggers?

I just can't see that tactic being a very effective way of curbing an opposing viewpoint in this day and age. Way too many ways to get news and opinions nowadays. Radio and TV are old technology for this kind of stuff.

Isn't HBO kind of the measuring stick here? It's been "a la carte" forever and it's $15 or so per month. I guess anything's possible, but I can't see that many people paying more for ESPN than HBO.

HBO only airs a couple "must watch" shows a week. And even then, many people choose to wait to watch them until they end up on DVD, Netflix, iTunes, etc. Compare that to ESPN and live sports. ESPN has live sports just about every night of the week, and once the game ends, the interest in watching it drops exponentially. Think of boxing on PPV. They can charge $50 for a night. ESPN can almost name their price if they keep all their live sports.

Compare that to ESPN and live sports. ESPN has live sports just about every night of the week, and once the game ends, the interest in watching it drops exponentially. Think of boxing on PPV. They can charge $50 for a night. ESPN can almost name their price if they keep all their live sports.

Sure, but if every channel becomes a la carte, the leagues can just let their deals with ESPN end and then broadcast the games that ESPN was carrying on their own networks(which every league already has). No more live content for ESPN. SBB is right here, ESPN is just a middleman in this. They have power now because they are included in every basic cable package, that goes away if everything goes a la carte. ESPN will be back to the 80's, airing World's Strongest Man and darts.

Yeah, I realize cable/dish is basically a duo-opoly. At least there's two! Three if you count netflix. TV/Broadband does compete more or less directly with in terms of time and money with other entertainment options.

How did cable companies get near-monopolies anyway? For a while there was competition in the DSL/dataline market. There is still "competition" in the wireless market (at least there are 5 companies or so). Is it just the entry barrier of laying coax everywhere?

Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) on Thursday unveiled legislation that would upend the cable and satellite business, forcing them to let customers pick-and-choose which channels they would like to get rather than take programming in bundles.

“The video industry, principally cable companies and satellite companies and the programmers that sell channels, like NBC and Disney-ABC, continue to give consumers two options when buying TV programming: First, to purchase a package of channels whether you watch them all or not; or second, not purchase any cable programming at all,” McCain said in remarks prepared to deliver on the floor of the Senate…..

So, we have to trust the market and keep our hands off it unless we don't? Check. Government should intervene and tell service providers what services they must provide? Check.

Someone needs to remind McCain he's been pretending to be a small government conservative for the last several decades.

The blackout lift for publicly financed stadia is the key thing here....

There's potentially more value added by broadcasting on other stations. ESPN isn't simply ESPN. ESPN is owned by a content provider which also owns plenty of other stations. That content provider has an interest in owning the rights to live sports not simply as a way of selling advertising content, but also as a way of promoting its other programming/channels.

As an example, Disney might value being able to deliver live sports content on one of its stations more than the MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA would value delivering it on their own channel. Ergo that programming will still be delivered on those non-MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA channels.

I'm not sure whether this will increase competition in a way that will help consumers. At the very least it will put an end to one cable customer subsidizing the content preferences of another. It may also end the current cable practice of launching new channels every time they get a new hit show. Basic cable channels are pretty thin on the amount of new content they generate. Hell, FX is launching a new channel in the fall, and moving some of the current programming over. It's not like they need the airtime (an increasingly dead concept anyway in light of on demand). They could just show Armageddon (the movie with the lowest movie quality:star power ratio of all time) 2 nights a week instead of 3.

Among other things - construction of the head ends, Network Operations Centers, and other infrastructure costs associated with creating a regional network from scratch are prohibitive. I suspect the upfront cost of getting licensing agreements and access to programming would make it difficult to offer a competitive bouquet of channels as well.

Hell, FX is launching a new channel in the fall, and moving some of the current programming over.

They aren't really launching a new channel. They are converting what is now Fox Soccer to FX2. Fox lost the rights to the EPL to NBC, so Fox Soccer has basically no programming worth anything anymore(they lost the Serie A rights to BeIN last year). They do still have rights to the Champions League for at least a year or two, but that will likely be bought up by another network as well.

There's a fair chance he got the idea from conservative bloggers/twitterers. Apparently there's been a bit of a push for this sort of legislation as a way to put MSNBC and CNN out of business, or at least harm them.

You're close. The push for the legislation started picking up steam when FX was airing episodes of the show "Nip/Tuck." The show pushed the boundaries of what could be aired on basic cable.

Fundamentalist Christian groups became upset when the creator of the show said something about wanting to show gay sex on the show. That advanced the movement about being able to pick and choose cable stations.

Before cable, TV programming was supported by advertisers. There were basically only 4 channels with original programming, the 3 commercial networks (ABC< NBC and CBS) and PBS. Local stations like WOR, WGN and WSBK had sports programming that could draw viewers.

So there were few options, but the quality was really good, despite the oppressive censorship. You never see anything as good as The Twilight Zone or Have Gun Will Travel anymore for free. Once cable came along, and the audience started to fragment, there were more options, but less quality, unless the programming was directly pay per view (like The Sopranos or The Wire).

So, assuming the crappy stuff is dispensed with due to lack of support, will the decrease in options result in a return to quality, at least partially? I hope so but have my doubts. I think too many people have gotten use to the reality show crap.

A couple of people upstairs have already done a lot of the heavy lifting as far as unintended consequences. But I'd like to add that this would permanently screw with ratings, and mess hard with the RSNs. The cable companies, content providers, ratings agencies, and others have a lot of influence in DC and employ a lot of people. I don't think there's any real chance of this passing.

Still though, it's a lot of money. I don't think a hardcore sports fan is going to realize much, if any, savings from a la carte.

Well, since our representatives are supposed to represent even non-sports fan, this shouldn't be determining factor.

I'd like to add that this would permanently screw with ratings, and mess hard with the RSNs.

Good. The ratings system could not be more dumb.

I haven't had a cable cord in years, and strongly support blowing up the entrenched cable model in favor of ANYTHING else. Also, I support anything that attacks the hypocrisy of publicly funded stadiums, which this at least helps address.

You're close. The push for the legislation started picking up steam when FX was airing episodes of the show "Nip/Tuck." The show pushed the boundaries of what could be aired on basic cable.

Fundamentalist Christian groups became upset when the creator of the show said something about wanting to show gay sex on the show. That advanced the movement about being able to pick and choose cable stations.

I haven't had a cable cord in years, and strongly support blowing up the entrenched cable model in favor of ANYTHING else

If a la carte were an option, and it magically preserved all of the choices of the current cable dial and didn't cost too much, would you get back into a monthly bill? I can't imagine why anyone would.

There's potentially more value added by broadcasting on other stations. ESPN isn't simply ESPN. ESPN is owned by a content provider which also owns plenty of other stations. That content provider has an interest in owning the rights to live sports not simply as a way of selling advertising content, but also as a way of promoting its other programming/channels.

As an example, Disney might value being able to deliver live sports content on one of its stations more than the MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA would value delivering it on their own channel. Ergo that programming will still be delivered on those non-MLB/NFL/NHL/NBA channels.

Bingo. MLB makes far more from FOX/ESPN than they would on their own as MLBtv because FOX/ESPN is paying a premium. The sports leagues don't want to be on their own. They're in the baseball business, not the TV business. These huge sports deals - most networks don't turn a profit from them.

So there were few options, but the quality was really good, despite the oppressive censorship. You never see anything as good as The Twilight Zone or Have Gun Will Travel anymore for free. Once cable came along, and the audience started to fragment, there were more options, but less quality, unless the programming was directly pay per view (like The Sopranos or The Wire).

Totally disagree. TV at the top end has more quality programming than it ever has before. A lot of that is there is more competition. OTA programming was generally pretty terrible in the 1950s, took some risks in the 1960s and 1970s that paid off, got god awful in the 1980s, and finally started to get good in the late 90s as cable became real competition. Now it sucks again, but basic cable is churning out great programming.

If a la carte were an option, and it magically preserved all of the choices of the current cable dial and didn't cost too much, would you get back into a monthly bill? I can't imagine why anyone would.

Well unless you're illegally downloading stuff, you are paying a monthly bill - Netflix and/or Hulu. People generally want to pay for things legally so long as the price is reasonable.

Man, I wish this were true. I have every channel known to man and watch zero (0) shows. I'll watch hockey, maybe some news, maybe a movie, but the weekly series are just God-awful. I'm supposed to watch something with dragons as a plot point? Something as comically ridiculous as Homeland? I've tried, my eyes never stop rolling. It's a shame, I miss having a show or two.

Oh well, my DVR tells me that ABC just aired a new episode of Wipeout. At least my daughter and I can watch that together and have a nice laugh at people falling down and going boom. Yes, this is what it's come to.

I don't really see why Netflix (or Amazon or Hulu or Youtube or heck Google) doesn't buy up a lot of these shows networks are cancelling that seem to have a decent audience. Shows like 1600 Penn, Happy Endings, Enlightened, Ben and Kate, Fringe all seem to have enough buzz or viewers that although not good enough for network (or HBO), but would be a good amount of eyeballs for a fledgling "channel" like Netflix, and might give them some cache.

Well, Netflix has already produced a fourth season of Arrested Development. So if that goes well, there'll probably be more.

I know, right? The other day some guy tried to sell me on watching some garbage full of absurd plot points about ghosts and witches. I told him I'm above watching Game of Thrones, Homeland, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men, and I'm certainly way above watching that sort of crap.

I know, right? The other day some guy tried to sell me on watching some garbage full of absurd plot points about ghosts and witches. I told him I'm above watching Game of Thrones, Homeland, Breaking Bad, and Mad Men, and I'm certainly way above watching that sort of crap.

TV has become incredibly niche, fantasy shows with dragons are for people who like fantasy and dragons. And there is basically something for every other tase as well. If you can't find a show you like, it's because you just don't like TV anymore, not because it has magically become worse, than back when you used to walk barefoot in the snow to school, uphill both ways...

Bingo. MLB makes far more from FOX/ESPN than they would on their own as MLBtv because FOX/ESPN is paying a premium. The sports leagues don't want to be on their own. They're in the baseball business, not the TV business. These huge sports deals - most networks don't turn a profit from them.

And yet the MLB Network was created, and has taken over the pregame show production duties from FOX.

The baseball business is the entertainment business. Regardless of the form of entertainment, content is king, but you have to get it to the masses. The TV business is part of it.

Right now MLB faces two middlemen: networks (i.e. FOX and ESPN), and signal providers (i.e. cable and satellite). MLB has created their own network, and through MLB.tv have created an alternative signal provider. They absolutely want to cut out the middlemen, but are willing (and it's in their benefit) to play it both ways for now.

Kind of related to the story: I wish I could pick and choose which programs and services my taxes supported.

I've done this mind exercise myself. It'd be cool if, say 80% of your taxes went to general treasury, and you could allocate the other 20% among certain categories like defense, education, transportation, etc.

I'm a big TV watcher. Part of that is because I'm a sucker for a procedural crime drama (seriously, I watch Rizzoli and Isles for God's sake) but just generally I think TV today is better than it's ever been in my lifetime. I think the increase of niche programming creates a scenario where shows are able to take risks they wouldn't be able to if the only option was general viewing. Sometimes those risks find widespread acclaim but there is just a lot of cool stuff out there.

Though really in my case a couple of cop shows and the occassional BBC documentary about the planet would probably keep me happy so I'm an easy mark.

Suggestion #1 would be to count the fees they charge the cable companies. ESPN isn't getting $5.00/subscriber (or more) because of SportsCenter.

But Sportscenter might have higher ratings and revenue by virtue of the fact the network has MLB/NFL games, something which NFL/MLB aren't in quite the same position to necessarily capture. Though at this point we're arguing about facts. I'm trying to find actual numbers right now.

I pay like $60 a month for cable. Just one TV, one DVR. For this I get to watch every Detroit Tigers game, any NBA playoff game I want, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, The Americans, and whatever other random stuff I flip to from time-to-time. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off. If it went up a bit (and it will, we'll see how good I am at haggling next time), then I still will feel like it is a fair deal.

I get to watch every Detroit Tigers game, any NBA playoff game I want, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, The Americans, and whatever other random stuff I flip to from time-to-time. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off.

MLBtv (if you are not subject to a Tigers blackout) is $120 a year.

The complete current season of Mad Men is $26.

You can't get the current season of Game of Thrones - you'll have to wait about 6-8 months and it will run about $40.

The Americans current season is available at Hulu.com for $7/month of by itself at Amazon.com for $26.

A decent antenna to get OTA HD programming will run you $40.

A Roku to stream your shows to your TV will run you about $60.

That costs you a total of $350 for the year or $29/month. If you think its worth the extra $30 a month for the convenience, the ability to have GoT immediately, NBA Playoff games (I believe NBA League Pass does not make them available immediately, you have to wait 3 hours) and the ability to flip through other shows, that's fine. But we did the math, and it was pretty clear we were paying too much.

Among other things - construction of the head ends, Network Operations Centers, and other infrastructure costs associated with creating a regional network from scratch are prohibitive.

I live about 5 miles out of town here, so we don't have cable. For the first few years we were stuck using satellite internet (which sucks, immensely...forget about videoconferencing) but eventually moved to an RF internet provider (~$300/yr for 10Mb peak service).

Recently, one of the other folks in our area (who isn't in position to get the RF signal from my neighbor's tower) looked into getting the local cable folks to lay fiber-to-the-home. The company wanted 18-20 homes within a "two street area" (couple miles) to commit $2000 up-front and then commit to five years of regular monthly fees --- $100 per month for 10Mb speeds, $140/month for 100Mb speeds.

Even with our satellite TV cost skyrocketing (HD, HD DVR, etc.) we are still paying about the same for TV and internet as we would solely for data, so I really can't justify it --- can already stream, if needed, so can't see a reason to give up functionality without a savings (plus the matter of the up-front cost).

A la carte would seem to be feasible (and highly profitable) in the sense of "buy a package and then pay for an additional channel or two". Our younger children would greatly enjoy Sprout, but to get the channel would raise our monthly cost by $13. If it were $3-5 for one additional channel, we'd pay for it (as this is on the order of what we arguably pay for our local PBS station).

That costs you a total of $250 for the year or $21/month. If you think its worth the extra $40 a month for the convenience, the ability to have GoT immediately, and the ability to flip through other shows, that's fine. But we did the math, and it was pretty clear we were paying too much.

I did a similar exercise yesterday and wound up with a bit less of a savings. There are two things that would seem to have driven my personal savings down;

1. I probably wind up paying for some shows that I wind up not really caring for a few times.

2. When I recently explored this my internet cost would go up if I got it as a standalone product.

Call your internet provider and tell them you're thinking of jumping ship. After we "unbundled" we did that and ended up getting locked into a one year price at the same amount.

Exactly what I did. They weren't willing to move. They did move on the cost of the bundle so I stuck with it. Unfortunately I'm in a blackout area for the Red Sox (and Bruins) so unloading cable is not really an option for me.

A la carte would seem to be feasible (and highly profitable) in the sense of "buy a package and then pay for an additional channel or two". Our younger children would greatly enjoy Sprout, but to get the channel would raise our monthly cost by $13. If it were $3-5 for one additional channel, we'd pay for it (as this is on the order of what we arguably pay for our local PBS station).

And I don't even think it has to be every channel for itself. Like if you like Sprout, you probably also want Nick Jr. and Cartoon Network and maybe some other kids channels. Bundle those together. If you like ESPN, you probably also want Fox Sports, Versus, and maybe even F/X. Bundle those together.

What was frustrating was guys that were into sports having to pay for Lifetime, or women into cooking shows having to pay for F/X.

I am probably the furthest thing from a capitalist, but I feel the free market works extremely well in the modern, internet age, entertainment industry. I

Cable TV, broadcast TV and high-speed home internet is not a free market. The baby bells had legislation passed that if they brought fiber to within 500 yards of a home, they didn't have to share the line, as they did with DSL. Cable, of course, is state regulated.
This legislation will probably not pass. I think the reason it will not pass is that these companies will get less money if it passes. In order to not get less money, they are quite willing to pay out slightly more money to their minions in the house and senate. As long as people aren't getting killed or poisoned the political class will do the bidding of their financiers 100% of the time.

Eight months of the year, I pay $199 for a Fios bundle that includes high speed internet, a land line with unlimited long distance calling, a cell phone with no limits that I'd ever exceed, and a Fios Premium TV package that gives me the clearest picture I've ever have and will ever need. For the other four months, I add $45 for the Extra Innings package. And with a DVD recorder I make it all back in what I save on DVD costs.

All that works out to about seven bucks a day over the course of a year. It wasn't that long ago that I would've paid more than that for one long distance phone call to Los Angeles. And if someone had made a package offer like this 30 or 40 years ago, adjusted downward to reflect 1970's dollars, it would've seemed like a dream that was too good to be true. Much as I'm not a fan of cable and phone company monopolies and oligopolies, I can't say that the deal I'm getting would be high on my list of consumer complaints.

If you're happy with the Verizon deal, that's great. The reason such services are available is that people are willing to pay for them. But they are not produced in a competitive environment. 10 years ago $1500 was not a bad price for a good home PC. Now $500 is more like it. Would it bother you if you knew that you could get the same services for $80 a month? I don't know that $80 is a realistic number, but without competition we'll never know.

MLB cannot make nearly as much money off MLB Network/MLBTV as it can off FOX/ESPN/TBS.

Back when it started, MLBN was charging cable companies $0.24 per subscriber per month. At that time, ESPN was charging $4 per subscriber (and north of $5 now, but I'll work with the old numbers). That's just for ESPN, not ESPN2, ESPNEWS, etc.

There are something like 115 million households in the USA. (Throw in the number of bars and restaurants showing TV, and... you're still essentially sitting at 115 million.) The latest pay-TV numbers suggest around 85% of US households pay for TV in one form (cable/fiber) or another (satellite). That's 98 million subscribers.

Let's say ESPN is received by all of them. (It was reported about a year later that ESPN has crossed the 100-million threshold, so that seems roughly accurate.) Using the old numbers, that's close to $400 million in revenue for ESPN from subscriber fees a few years ago. Per month. Again, just for ESPN, not ESPN2. (Currently, ESPN2 is somewhere around 1/8 the fee of ESPN. I don't have the analogous numbers from the earlier days of MLBN.

At the time ESPN was paying MLB $350 million for broadcast rights. Per year.

That means the subscriber fees they picked up in 3 weeks in July, when MLB is essentially the only major sport they have to cover, was enough to pay for all MLB content they showed for the whole season. That doesn't count the ad revenue they got from showing that content; ad revenue is maybe half the subscriber fee revenue. (Tough to pin it down, as ad revenue will fluctuate a lot more.)

So, if we break it down a different way... In the early days of MLBN, MLB collected from ESPN roughly $0.29 per ESPN subscriber per month, and got no slice of ad revenue. They were at the same time charging $0.24 per MLBN subscriber per month, and getting whatever ad revenue they could. If we assume a 3-to-1 ratio for MLBN instead of the 2-to-1 ESPN pulls down, that puts MLBN revenue around $0.32 per subscriber. Versus $0.29 per ESPN subscriber.

That means the biggest difference to MLB is one of scale. MLBN doesn't reach as large an audience as ESPN, nor will it any time soon. However, with a la carte programming suggested by the bill this thread is about, they can reach a much greater audience than MLBN can now. Certainly not nearly as wide an audience as ESPN, but greater.

And ESPN has almost no choice but to continue paying MLB for whatever they can get, because they need the content. The WNBA, the X Games, and the NFL combine can't fill the summer programming months well enough to justify the soon-to-be $7 subscriber fee they will be charging.

That means MLB will build its network out, AND double-dip with ESPN, for a long time.

You can't get the current season of Game of Thrones - you'll have to wait about 6-8 months and it will run about $40.

The Americans current season is available at Hulu.com for $7/month of by itself at Amazon.com for $26.

A decent antenna to get OTA HD programming will run you $40.

A Roku to stream your shows to your TV will run you about $60.

That costs you a total of $350 for the year or $29/month. If you think its worth the extra $30 a month for the convenience, the ability to have GoT immediately, NBA Playoff games (I believe NBA League Pass does not make them available immediately, you have to wait 3 hours) and the ability to flip through other shows, that's fine. But we did the math, and it was pretty clear we were paying too much.

EDIT: Forgot some costs.

Good post, thanks. I'm in Detroit so the MLB TV isn't an option but do appreciate seeing what these other things run.

When you put it that way, I'm starting to wonder if the rights fees MLB is charging are high enough! These are interesting numbers and they certainly suggest that you're right about the future (diminished) prospects for ESPN should this bill pass. (Not that it will pass, of course. If there's one thing everyone posting in this thread can agree on it's that!)

Much as I'm not a fan of cable and phone company monopolies and oligopolies, I can't say that the deal I'm getting would be high on my list of consumer complaints.

The other side of that is you are one of the lucky few who are able to get fiber to the home. Verizon has stopped rolling it out, I'm not sure about u-verse. In many markets, a single cable company is literally the only provider.

I pay like $60 a month for cable. Just one TV, one DVR. For this I get to watch every Detroit Tigers game, any NBA playoff game I want, Mad Men, Game of Thrones, The Americans, and whatever other random stuff I flip to from time-to-time. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off. If it went up a bit (and it will, we'll see how good I am at haggling next time), then I still will feel like it is a fair deal.

That's $720 per year for cable alone without Internet. A fine deal if you are happy.

Eight months of the year, I pay $199 for a Fios bundle that includes high speed internet, a land line with unlimited long distance calling, a cell phone with no limits that I'd ever exceed, and a Fios Premium TV package that gives me the clearest picture I've ever have and will ever need. For the other four months, I add $45 for the Extra Innings package. And with a DVD recorder I make it all back in what I save on DVD costs.

That's $2,600 per year. Again nice del if you are happy.

I pay $55 a month for 25MB download speed Internet access, plus $8 per month for Netflix streaming. With the end of Archer's season, we are spending $24 per month on TV shows from iTunes, was $35. We also occasionally buy seasons or best show bundles for $10-$30 for the Simpsons, Southpark, etc, that give you 8-24 episodes that take a month or so for us to watch, and sometimes rent first release movies ($4).

My guess is our total cost is $100/month, or $1,200 per year for interet and TV programming. It's certainly less expensive than cable, the $55 for high soeed internet is a sunk cost either way given my home office, so my TV watching cost is $45 a month, or $550 a year. But as I've said before, I don't do it for the cost, in fact I'd pay much more to watch this way. I get to watch what I want, when I want, without ever programming a DVR (or forgetting to program one). I never see a commercial, 30 min shows take 22 mins to watch, hour shows take 44 minutes, and all without having to touch a remote during the show. It's a way more pleasant way to watch, I get more out of each show and in less time.

I'd love to play $20 per month for Netflix if it significantly increased the number and quality of shows/movies they feared, but still we find something decent to watch on it every night.

I tried Hulu, but quit immediately because of the minor amount of commercials they force you to watch.

Cost of setup was a $99 AppleTV box two years ago, and a $50 HDTV antenna. I almost never watch local TV except for occasional news/live sports.

After posting on this thread I reconsidered and am trying MLB.TV on a monthly bass for $25 per month ($1,500 a year now) . So far its pretty awesome. The games are super sharp, the selection is awesome and I don't miss the DBacks games much. It's great to flick around and see teams I've rarely seen while my main game is on commercial break. If my wife tired of the game I can watch it (or split screen 4 games) on my laptop while she watches Talk Soup. When we went to bed I watch the end of the game (SF/Atlanta) on my iPhone, same super sharp picture.

The only thing they could do better is to run commercials. That may sound strange coming from me, but right now most feeds justice 2-3 mins dead air between innings. I wouldn't mind them running commercials if it enabled them to charge $19 per month, or lift the blackout rule. As it is I'm either working on my laptop, going to restroom, or kitchen while they'd run anyways. I'm sure the MLB has to surrender a significant cut to Apple since I subscribed through them (30%*) which is why I have to pay $25 instead of the regular $20 price, so commercials could help the MLB compensate for that.

* 30% is standard, unfortunately Apple doesn't seem to cut volume deals. In some respects it's not a bad deal. For small developers like me they are providing world-wide hosting, distribution and minor marketing support. Apple also covers the 2-3% credit card transaction costs. The MLB has to pay someone (cable, directv) a significant percentage to distribute their product. But given the size of the MLB's market it seems like 20% would be mutually beneficial for both Apple and the MLB.

When you put it that way, I'm starting to wonder if the rights fees MLB is charging are high enough!

Well, they just doubled it in the latest deal with ESPN ($700 million per year), so apparently MLB and ESPN agree. But like I said, ESPN is looking to up the fee to something north of $7.

A couple things here.

1. Absent this bill, ESPN is slowly pushing aggregators like cable/satellite to a la carte format on their own. When ESPN is bundled with a bunch of other channels, aggregators can bury the disparate cost among the cheap channels. The more ESPN leverages their essential nature in that package, the more they can get.

Aggregators are facing many alternatives (fiber, internet) they did not previously have, so passing the prices on to customers will get harder. Another option is to negotiate lower fees from the other channels, which they've been trying lately, but likely won't work on the grand scale ESPN will require. The final option is a la carte. Set ESPN on its own, make it a $10 bundle for all ESPN channels. Methinks there will be a lot fewer subscribers for ESPN at $120 per year, but the number of cable or satellite subscribers won't change much at all.

2. Every side of this suggests there is immense value in aggregation. Cable/satellite companies are aggregators. ESPN itself is an aggregator. But that value only exists to the extent the aggregators are creating a package people want for the cost they're charging.

ESPN right now is trying to take a huge share of the package cost. At some point, cable/satellite aggregation (as it currently exists) isn't going to be worth it. ESPN's aggregation will still be useful to customers, and as such will still be useful to MLB. But think about it this way: a cable company could put in its basic package both MLB Network and NFL Network, and various RSNs, instead of ESPN. How many people would take that package?

If you're happy with the Verizon deal, that's great. The reason such services are available is that people are willing to pay for them. But they are not produced in a competitive environment. 10 years ago $1500 was not a bad price for a good home PC. Now $500 is more like it. Would it bother you if you knew that you could get the same services for $80 a month? I don't know that $80 is a realistic number, but without competition we'll never know.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that we need more competition for Comcast / Verizon / AT&T / Cox / etc., and as some people here might know, I'm not a fan of many of these companies' customer service departments. My comment about Fios was simply an attempt to put some of these complaints in a bit of perspective. Compared to the runaway costs of urban housing, health insurance and a college education, $2600 a year seems like an absolute steal, given the rather incredible (to me, anyway) array of information and entertainment choices I'm getting in return.

ESPN right now is trying to take a huge share of the package cost. At some point, cable/satellite aggregation (as it currently exists) isn't going to be worth it. ESPN's aggregation will still be useful to customers, and as such will still be useful to MLB. But think about it this way: a cable company could put in its basic package both MLB Network and NFL Network, and various RSNs, instead of ESPN. How many people would take that package?

Yes. That's an excellent point and is something I was thinking about when considering an individual channel itself as a content aggregation. In the end, you might actually desire increasingly specialized and homogenous channels (exactly as you suggest with regard to choosing to subscribe to MLB + NFL network instead of ESPN).

As an example, take TNT. TNT produces original dramas but also shows NBA basketball. While there's some overlap there, there's also obviously lots of people who only watch TNT for one or the other. A customer might prefer a more cost efficient delivery of the kind of entertainment they desire. So a channel like USA which also produces original procedural dramas may have a significant advantage over TNT precisely because it isn't saddled with NBA rights fees.

I may sound like a commie here, but one way to have "competition" in data services to the home is for the gov't to "own" the physical system, hiring able maintenance companies to maintain and upgrade, and allow any responsible provider to provider services over the system. The gov't could also make a specification for an inexpensive email transceiver so that even low/no income people could have basic email and text internet service.
All this s* will never happen, and life will continue to suck.

About once a year I look at cord-cutting. Disclaimer: I work for a cable/sat/telco-type company, but I have nothing to do with that side of the business. This all reflects my personal views only.

At this point I keep my TV service for three reasons:

(1) NFL games. I enjoy baseball more, but I could easily live with audio-only baseball. (Don't ask me to explain why, 'cause I cannot.) I'd admittedly have to figure out something for the playoffs, though as I'm a Cub fan I've probably got a couple of years to sort that out. But I really would prefer to watch Bears games on TV. I do have an antenna in my attic, and with it I can pick up pretty much any Chicago station except the CBS affiliate, so I could get most games, but not all.

(2) HBO programming. Their shows don't show up on Netflix, etc., so if I want Game of Thrones, I need HBO. Rumor has it they're working on selling a streaming-only subscription; I'd be all over that.

(3) My wife. If she goes to take a nap or whatever, she likes to just put the TV on. The problem with streaming is that it typically stops after the episode plays or whatever; she likes the TV to just keep running.

I get a discount on my service through work, but even so, I wouldn't mind having that money back. I'd definitely save by switching to a handful of pay services (I already have 2 Netflix streaming accounts and Amazon Prime). My kids mostly stream or watch local videos; it's really just us old farts that care.

I finally agree with Andy on something. I have almost the identical services and costs and I think it's fine. Everybody in the family gets what they want and Verizon makes a little something. Maybe it's the perspective of a certain age but I also can't understand the ######## about ATM fees. 40 years ago if you'd told people they'd have 24 hour access to cash in machines that are everywhere for a couple of bucks they'd have jumped through fire to sign up.

Yes. That's an excellent point and is something I was thinking about when considering an individual channel itself as a content aggregation. In the end, you might actually desire increasingly specialized and homogenous channels (exactly as you suggest with regard to choosing to subscribe to MLB + NFL network instead of ESPN).

And that's with an a la carte model. I'm actually thinking of an alternate scenario now. What if a cable operator could set their basic cable package as:

They'd be fools not to offer the former, right? I'm thinking if the ESPNs in total end up around $8 in subscriber fees ($7 for ESPN, $0.80 for ESPN2, let's say $0.20 for ESPNEWS and the rest), and the other networks I listed off average $0.50 each for subscriber fees, it's the same cost to the cable operator, but they offer greater depth and breadth with the former. I think the NFL Network is around $0.50 in fees, and the rest are lower, so in the short run the cable operators would make a lot more profit at that price, and wouldn't lose too many subscribers.

And that's with an a la carte model. I'm actually thinking of an alternate scenario now.

Right. The problem in that scenario is the fact that ESPN is owned by a parent company that owns Disney channel, ABC, ABC family among others. So a basic cable package that excludes ESPN probably excludes ABC, ABC family, Disney, etc. That's arguably the problem that's solved by a la carte from the provider's point of view. That kind of negotiating tactic becomes obsolete.

But I did get your point. ESPN could be pricing itself into premium channel territory while lacking value relative to other sports options. They might already be there if not for the fact that content providers themselves have significant leverage.